Smith v Queensland Corrective Services Commission - [2000] QSC 26

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Smith v Queensland Corrective Services Commission [2000]
QSC 026
PARTIES: STEVEN SMITH
(Applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND CORRECTIVE SERVICES
COMMISSION
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S: S 7037 of 1999
DIVISION: Trial Division (Brisbane Registry)
ORIGINATING Supreme Court
COURT:
DELIVERED ON: 2 March 2000
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 17 February 2000
JUDGE: Mackenzie J
ORDER: Application dismissed with costs to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – Natural Justice – Relevant and irrelevant considerations – Disclosure of material adverse to prisoner – Failure to observe time limits – Failure to fix "decision date" – Remissions – prisoner not of good conduct and industry.
Judicial Review Act 1991
Corrective Services Regulations 1989 Reg 21,27
McCasker v The Queensland Corrective Services
Commission (1998) 2 Qd R 261, 267
Vaughan v Watt 9 LJ Ex 272
Derecourt v Corbishley 5 E&B 188;
Groux Co v Cooper 8CBNS 814
Felton v The Queensland Corrective Services Commission
(1994) 2 Qd R 490
Walker v Queensland Corrective Services Commission (1999)
QSC 49
R v Rogers (1987) 8 NSWLR 236, 238-9
McSweeney v Queensland Corrective Services Commission
TSV 11/90, Kneipp J, 2 March 1990)
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority
(1998) 194 CLR 355
COUNSEL: K Varley for applicant
J Logan SC for respondent
SOLICITORS: Ryan & Bosscher for applicant
CW Lohe, Crown Solicitor, for respondent

The applicant seeks a statutory order of review of a decision to refuse remissions to him. He is serving a sentence of eight years imprisonment and a cumulative sentence of 34 days for another offence. If he had been granted full remissions his earliest release date would have been 10 March 1999.
Although the application concerns itself with a number of matters, Mr Varley who appeared for the applicant restricted himself to three areas of complaint. The first was a failure to extend natural justice to the applicant. This had two aspects. The first was that the applicant was not provided with a copy of a report prepared by a sentence management team in connection with the application for remission which was considered by the authorized delegate of the Office of Sentence Management. The second was that the decision to refuse remissions had been made before the applicant had been given the opportunity to respond to an invitation to comment on a letter dated 22 February 1999 in which the authorized delegate advised that he had decided to consider not granting remissions.
The second area of complaint was that the decision maker took into account irrelevant considerations or failed to take relevant considerations into account. This was concerned with aspects of the construction of Regulations 21 and 27 of the Corrective Services Regulations and the administrative guideline relating to remissions, and a submission that because not all of eight specified items in a list of criteria in an Administrative Guideline relating to remissions were referred to in the letters relating to consideration of the applications the decision was flawed.

[4] The third was concerned…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Smith v Queensland Corrective Services Commission

Details

AGLC: Smith v Queensland Corrective Services Commission [2000] QSC 26
Case: [2000] QSC 26
Decision Date: 2 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Smith sought judicial review of a decision made by the Queensland Corrective Services Commission to deny remissions. The case before the court involved whether the Commission had adhered to principles of natural justice and whether it had correctly applied the relevant legislative provisions in denying the applicant's request for remissions. The applicant argued that the Commission had failed to observe time limits in providing him with relevant information, failed to disclose material adverse to him, and had not fixed a decision date. Additionally, the applicant contended that the Commission had failed to consider relevant factors in determining the remissions.

The court examined whether the Commission's failure to observe time limits or disclose certain material affected the fairness of the decision-making process. It also considered whether the absence of a fixed decision date was material and whether the Commission had failed to consider relevant factors in determining the remissions. The court held that the Commission had not failed to observe procedural fairness as the applicant had not suffered any prejudice from the alleged failures. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant was not of good conduct and industry, which was a relevant factor in determining remissions. The court concluded that the Commission's decision was not unreasonable or unlawful.

The court dismissed Smith's application for judicial review and ordered that costs be assessed. The court found that the Commission had not acted outside its authority, had not failed to observe procedural fairness, and had correctly applied the relevant legislative provisions in denying the applicant's request for remissions. The court held that the Commission's decision was not unreasonable or unlawful and dismissed the application with costs to be assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed with costs to be assessed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Smith v Queensland Corrective Services Commission [2000] QSC 026
PARTIES:	STEVEN SMITH (Applicant) v QUEENSLAND CORRECTIVE SERVICES COMMISSION (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	S 7037 of 1999
DIVISION:	Trial Division (Brisbane Registry)
ORIGINATING	Supreme Court
COURT:
DELIVERED ON:	2 March 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 February 2000
JUDGE:	Mackenzie J
ORDER:	Application dismissed with costs to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – Natural Justice – Relevant and irrelevant considerations – Disclosure of material adverse to prisoner – Failure to observe time limits – Failure to fix "decision date" – Remissions – prisoner not of good conduct and industry.
Judicial Review Act 1991 Corrective Services Regulations 1989 Reg 21,27 McCasker v The Queensland Corrective Services Commission (1998) 2 Qd R 261, 267 Vaughan v Watt 9 LJ Ex 272 Derecourt v Corbishley 5 E&B 188; Groux Co v Cooper 8CBNS 814 Felton v The Queensland Corrective Services Commission (1994) 2 Qd R 490 Walker v Queensland Corrective Services Commission (1999) QSC 49 R v Rogers (1987) 8 NSWLR 236, 238-9 McSweeney v Queensland Corrective Services Commission TSV 11/90, Kneipp J, 2 March 1990) Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
COUNSEL:	K Varley for applicant J Logan SC for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ryan & Bosscher for applicant CW Lohe, Crown Solicitor, for respondent